##VIDEO ID:owyxaFIIZZk## e e e e e e e e e good evening today is uh January 13th 2025 4 p.m. this is the planning board hybrid meeting uh my name is artb I'm chair of the planning board this meeting is being recorded and will be available shortly thereafter for scheduled and On Demand viewing on any smartphone or tablet device if anyone else is recording the meeting please notify the chair I don't see anyone uh pursuing to Governor Healey's March 29 2023 signing of the acts of 2023 extending certain covid-19 measures adopted during the state of emergency suspending certain provisions of the open meeting law general laws chapter 3A section 20 until March 31st 2025 this meeting of the chatam planning board is being conducted in person and via remote participation every effort will be made to ensure that the public can adequately access the proceedings as provided for in the order a reminder that persons who would like to listen to this meeting well while in progress may do so by calling the phone number 1508 945 4410 conference ID 883 369 489 pound or join join the meeting online via Microsoft teams through the link in the posted agenda while this is a live broadcast and simoc cast on on chadam TV formerly channel 18 despite our best efforts we may not be able to provide for a realtime access we will post a record of this meeting on the town's website as soon as possible um I'll begin with a road call um Katherine heer Katherine helper present uh Ren chain waren chain present Bob wsha Bob WCHA present Charlene Greenhall Charlene greenhalge present Frank sheer Frank Sher presid uh Bob dubis is absent and this is Art sprew I'm present um I would uh like to remind the public that this is a uh long range planning workshop for the first hour of our meeting we'll begin our business meeting at 5:00 pm. so if uh you want to log out and log back in by all means uh you're fine to do that all right um like to begin with um we had an update done to the to the calendar just to see if we could fit in another meeting give us a little bit more breathing uh room for how we're going to progress to get this to a public heing so I'd like to briefly go through that just to to uh see the steps um the hard date is March 18th that's where the select board closes the Warren articles for the town meeting so all the other points lead up to that a workshop today uh on the 27th of uh January we'll have a presentation uh of the visuals by Union studio and another Workshop session the uh February 3rd is the date that I would like to try and add we're looking for a time at 2:00 I I'm not sure if I heard from all the board members if you're available at 2 o'clock for this meeting cther um Bob that work for you then uh okay just to let you know okay um that we're going to we're going to put that one in in case we need it and as I go through this you'll see that we might uh need that so when we try to uh put all the pieces together on this we'll need to then vote on September 10 oh excuse me on February 10th the Articles to the select board for review and referral back to us for a public hearing it's just a process that we need to go through that will get on the select board's agenda for February 18th if they refer it back to us we'll be advertising both on the 20th and 27th of February for a public meeting that will be occur on March 10th so March after March 10th we'll be voting to have the Articles sent for uh to be added to a warrant article and you can see the timeline is real tight my my concern was is we we when I sent out the list of items that I thought we needed to attend to at least what I identified I certainly want to ask for input I wanted to make sure we could get through all those those discussion items today hopefully decide on as many as we can to close them out but it's going to take time for I think um the staff at Community Development to um work some of the language in associated with some of these and then have it come back to us in a review also we just uh um received comments from um Town Council and I think I think the board's going to want to see that I think that's going to come out later this week is that right yes because if there's any wording y changes would like to send that back to him correct final review and then send out comments right so i' I've seen those there's you know little nuances there there's clarifications that we'll need to refer uh and get back to the Town Council on so I think we're going to need some time to do that I was concerned if we were just going to deal with some of the items that I listed without his input that we wouldn't be able to get there and that's why I've added the um the February 3rd meeting so that we can go through the final wording by that point it it in the tenth it needs to be in its final form and really all we're doing is we're saying yes let's go ahead and submit this to the pl uh to the select board for for their referral not a lot of time for us to resolve all the wording and any other adjustments that we want to do between now and then so uh any um other points that board members want to make on the schedule on that nothing regarding the schedule but is there any reason why we can't see what Town Council has said thus far uh it wasn't included in the packet so no I know that it's going to be out this week yeah we we can certainly share that sorry Mr chairman we can certainly share that yeah it was just a matter of because of the conversation around density some some of the wording may have changed and it might have changed what his comments were and that was that was the reason we hadn't shared it up until this point sure sure being an optimist it's also possible that we might get done with our decisions and consideration of all these matters more quickly than anticipated and and finalize the wording more quickly um I'm just throwing that out there that it could be possible that allow I would welcome that yeah um and then because you you say on your new list um February 3rd meeting if needed um we should plan on needing it but I'm just going to be optimistic and it's possible okay not yeah well I'm I'm concerned about once we um resolve some of these have some um correction there's still this language that needs to go back and forth the staff needs to work something up Town Council should should review it again we should review it again I'm I'm just concerned about the timing that's all that's true and I and I think there's going to be some uh the staff might be on vacation I believe during some of this so I I want to provide a little bit of flexibility for them to uh complete as much of this as possible uh so I've uh if you had a chance to take a look at my list is there other things that we discuss that I didn't put on here that we should U look into I'm not trying to limit it to just this this is all I put in my notes from the last meeting uh Frank yeah the only uh we we I think we all had a reaction that the size of the buildings in the build analysis was large um and so I thought that was a topic we consider whether the footprint of the building should be a bit smaller than we've provided for so okay so you'd like to take a look at that item yeah because each Zone has a specific size okay um if if you think of something else along the way by all means just would just add it to the list uh if there's uh nothing else let's why don't we just start at the top and I hopefully I'm setting up some easy ones in the beginning that we can just go through these come up with a a a a direction and then move on uh I think we talked about last time it would be good to U increase the depth of the A1 Zone um if you take a look at the uh the graphic map on there you'll see that that zone is relatively small um that is the only Zone that would require some element of commercial development other zones have a lot more flexibility of just perhaps being residential or something like that so um I would like to suggest that we increase the size of that 150 feet 200 feet I don't I don't think that's going to impact hardly any of the A2 Zone if you take a look at the uh the The Graphic Dimensions on it but um I'm I'm open to which way the board members would like to go with this go ahead charl um I think we do want to to expand that um azone um I'm just you know not trying to defer it but I think the presentation we're going to see by Union I think we talked to them a little bit and I think they were going to kind of you know do a little uh I forget how he worded it but working outside of the box to see um but we may get a better idea of what might be appropriate right I don't think we want to go any deeper than 200 fet but correct certainly correct um but that 150 to 200 and maybe um not to complicate things but we have some really deep Lots yes but there aren't that many of them maybe for those deeper Lots maybe we have a deeper a for those I don't know I'm deer A1 you mean A1 yes yes A1 thank you you know to to um you know it's a percentage of the lot rather than necessarily the depth of you know a stagnant depth yeah I think that really complicates thing making a percentage Yeah Yeah so and and I didn't mean but you know for those lots that are you know we've got and I'm looking at a really teeny tiny map it looks like we really only have two of them honestly on the North side the Deep ones you mean deep ones you know maybe those we may want to have a little bit deeper yeah can I an alternative go go ahead interpretation yes absolutely everything Beyond behind this A1 zone is could be anything it could be 100% housing but it could also have commercial in there it's not specified that's correct so so why would we restrict that flexibility as long as the front of the each property is at least 50% commercial which is what we wanted it it allows somebody to come in and make that extra 50 feet that we're trying to mandate it could be commercial but if it fits better as a larger residential project it's there I I don't I don't think we have to to change what we have could I please yeah if I could respond to Bob I think the part of the rationale behind this is a reaction to bsc's buildout analysis that built something that we don't want to have built there so we need to think of ways to address that unintended consequence um we've thrown around a couple of ideas to address the unintended consequence a couple of them are on this list one of them was to increase the Zone one a size so that limits that I don't know what you call that sort of box-like repetitive res all residential buildout analysis that we got from BSC by increasing the size of Zone a one we're going to limit that and so it's one answer to that to mitigating that unintended consequence which maybe not everybody on the board but a number of us consider undesired and the other thing that is on this list that is also in response to try to mitigate that result is adding the bylaw requirement for preliminary site plan review for all mixed sites because that gives the board some manner to by through a special permit process to um how do I say to monitor how those sites are built out and to look at green space and common areas and things like that that might not be um strictly required and also the minimum maximum parking requirement for uses so those so all those three are ways of mitigating that undesired Consequence the other way of mitigating it is to reduce the maximum density which we'll also be discussing um we considered going down to um five as the base and eight as the maximum rather than 12 that's another strategy to mitigate that so I think that's what that's the reason for it um I I I think the other thing that we were looking at is the it's possible that the only place that we have commercials in the A1 Zone and if you take a look at the way it's structured right now you can put the first 30 ft in the lower level in the A1 zone is commercial and then it can be all residential after that point I I thought that that was just a little bit too limiting on the commercial to allow it and my thought was let's put it at let's increase it up to say 150 ft 51% commercial or 50% commercial um in the A1 Zone and then if development wants to do Residential on last fine let's work it out through a mixed use site plan yeah Frank please all right I I just like to to say that um I concur that's exactly what I was thinking just go from 100 to 150 and make the commercial 50 or 51 and frankly call it a day that's kind of where I am you this is Warren I would I would agree with that I would with Frank's okay whether it's 150 or 125 or that's fine but I also agree with the point here that um anything in these a zones can be commercial it can be they can be yeah I'm not I don't know that I would go forward with anything on the assumption that 100% of anything that could be built residentially will be residential I think there'll be some commercial anyway y so I think that um you know means that we don't have to be quite as restrictive but again I would I would support that going to 150 ft and 50% commercial I I think by by increasing density and given a density bonus that's going to you know encourage developers to pursue that as an as option as much as they can that that's that's going to benefit them so I'm not trying to push that off all I'm saying is is a if I if we get what we want in the A1 Zone the rest of it can play out the way a developer thinks he can sell their develop his piece of property and we can look at it from a a comprehensive uh or a you know a complex site review is the way I view it because there could be mixed uses on there and you can arrange things quite quite differently depending upon how they approach it and way the uses are set up um Bob I don't want to uh sidestep you um yeah I I I I'm trying to figure out how we do this as quickly as possible I I I think it probably would be better to have it is more flexible the the bylaw requirements in the site plan gives us an awful lot of flexibility for instance if somebody said look I really want to leave the front the way you got it but it makes more sense for me to build uh most of my residential in the middle and put some more commercial at the back um you know I I just think these These are pretty unique sites uh we don't know what it's going to take to um encourage a builder to build affordable or attainable housing uh on these sites um you know if we put too many restrictions on them that it's going to be fairly hard to to make them affordable I mean small a affordable and I uh I would rather have our site plan and be the way that we ensure that it doesn't look like the ugly thing that we saw and um and try and keep as much flexibility but if everybody else wants to go with 150 feet we we can do it and see if that works or not y so but wouldn't be the way I would do it anyway can I make a comment sure please um I just wanted to respond to what Charlene said and if I might um I think in an Ideal World we might like to give that very kind of specific consideration lot by lot but there is a Time issue here and I see I just threw it out there and and you know anything I say doesn't necessarily need a response so I'm yeah I just think in terms of time and if efficacy we might want to consider the um 150 ft and and if we do adopt this other point about um the preliminary site plan review which I think art will explain when but I think you're thinking of a more comprehensive kind of review in I don't want to use the C comprehensive but I it's a a preliminary site plan for complex sites that's that's a it should be a requirement not a uh option and it it would be our opportunity to flush out out with an applicant all the pieces that would go into this and how it would look how they would arrange it this the separations the setbacks and everything so uh it it doesn't have to be a real complex section I I uh the wording can be as much as a sentence or two that um uh the uh staff can actually draft up for us to review on it and we could refind it after we see it um the so why don't we move ahead with that approach right now if we want to change that the these are just numerical numbers and if we make a decision in the next meeting or two to just change this to that number and that number that's a quick change that's not a problem I think if we get to any kind of section that's going to require rewording language and we want to get Town Council review that's that those are the ones that we probably should settle on as quickly as possible so these two here could could be adjusted as we go through this before we finalize uh by the February February 10th Mr chairman it seems to me there's a pretty good consent almost a consensus here that y adjusting the size and the percentage of commercial in A1 Zone okay I think we ought to move on we've already used uh you know 25 minutes of our hour on perhaps the simplest issue gotta um so if we can do that and I would propose that we do it I'm not sure I'm the one to make the make the I'll be happy to move on okay well let's just if I could just repeat it's 150 ft and 51% right correct yeah well that's that's where we're word it now and we'll do a final review can I ask a question why why 51 that's what you said that's I said 50 I think we I think this is f can you maybe help I think this is elsewhere in our in our bylaw where it's 51% isn't that correct sure in the definition for a apartment incidental to commercial use 51% requirement for commercial yeah that's what it was I it was just something that came out from before so we just set it that if you want to set it at a different number by all means I'm okay well 50 sounds okay like a more even number 50% is yeah um the the next one is reword section related to not allowing short-term rentals um I think the board agrees on this I would just defer this to um Town Council to work up wording for us well the point that I made at the last meeting I think there should be some latitude given for short-term rentals um because hopefully these are going to be um occupied by you know this is their principal residents and I don't have a problem with with people you know renting their house out for for reasonable periods of of of time and I think we should discuss for a minute here what that is is it four weeks six weeks eight weeks what is it I think we maybe we should maybe we come to a quick consensus if four weeks whatever one month a year yeah that one one month is okay with actually anything is okay with with me but we need some latitude I think I this was first raised by You Frank that's correct um I think I'd like to hear all the board members support whatever this is um Mr chair I'm not suggesting that that would not happen well this is this is Warren um for quite some time I was gravitating toward the position that Frank just moused if you're renting if it's really your principal resident but you wish to live in Florida for tax purposes maybe that won't be done but I have moved away from that because the real intent of this bylaw is to encourage yearround residents yep people live you know people who work in this y uh town and this County um who need a place to live here around they're not the ones who can afford two houses and move to Florida there's plenty of housing in chattam for people that wish to um have six months residence somewhere else or who may need to rent out their their house uh for short term there's plenty of plenty of housing for that what we don't have is a place where there will be incentives with teeth to ensure that there's housing available for people to live in 12 months a year year round um so I've gravitated to the point of saying for these small number of houses relative to the housing stock in town and given all the objectives of creating a neighborhood which has people in it not short-term rentals and not people not you know it's just as bad for me to say they leave it empty and move to Florida for 6 months that doesn't get us to where we're trying to get either that for this small section this small town U uh of town I've come to the conclusion that we really want to have people living there so rent fine but it needs to be no less than 365 days yeah may I um in in my neighborhood we we have and it's a modest neighborhood um it's an old working class neighborhood and the people that live there live there all year round they send their kids to school a lot of them are fishermen um and often they'll go into a camper uh and go off to the Grand Canyon or something and rent their house for a little while and that's important income for them um and um so that's that's where I'm coming from I think we need some flexibility to allow that to happen now and and I have some sensitivity to that position I really do I was in that camp um arguing with myself but then I said there's no shortage of housing in chatam such as you're describing where people can do exactly that hop in their RV and their trailer and go off and you know there's no shortage of options for that what there's a real shortage of is a place that are modestly priced housing for people to live in 12 months a year and if we don't limit it to that in this very small section what we're going to end up with is people who find it very convenient to have a house here and then they're in Florida the rest of the year and they'll rent it out for whatever they can get and I think that is not going to achieve a yearr round stable population um unless we say that for this small part of the of the housing and the uh real estate in shatam and in order to achieve the objectives in the long range plan they're by the way very nice nicely summarized as to how we got to where we are um and what what staff has provided um the only way I've come up with that you can ensure that is to say that no um you don't have to rent it you can just leave it empty that's fine no that's but um that's not fine that's not fine there's so many families in chadam for all the time that my family's lived here everybody in chadam goes and they pitch a tent in Nickerson park for two months a year eight weeks a year one week you know one month a year at least six weeks a year and they rent out their house which is their are yearr round residents they're full-time yearr round residents they literally pitch a tent in Nickerson park because they can add to their monthly income which is very difficult to make a living age in a tourist economy and support a family and bring them up even 30 40 years ago when my parents first moved here that's what everybody did and I think we want to allow people that option because for the year-round residents they're going to be there living there 10 months a year or 11 months a year it's a wonderful way to add to their yearly income a lot of families really depend okay just a minute Warren just I'd like to have the other board members chime in a little bit okay um uh Bob I I mean I I I think we're all in agreement yeah there but I don't I haven't heard a mechanism that actually lets that happen and and if the if the Town Council has a way that we can say it has to be a a full-time o uh resident owner they don't have to you know they have to be voting member you know what we can make those restrictions on whether they can vote or not but I don't think we can make those restrictions on whether they can buy another house or not so I I I think this is this is all nice but I don't think we can I don't think we have a way to actually enforce it yeah uh Charlene we're all assuming here that these are going to be ownership units that's correct and there's you know there's a very good chance that they're not going to they're going to be rentals and in which case they should be in my opinion you know if John Smith is building this development and it's got 10 Apartments and their rental apartments then those should be restricted to yearr round living for those people but I also the last time brought up apartments for workers and in some cases that may be seasonal and I think we need to work that in there somehow I really do because I know several places that have that that's the intent that's why they put the apartments there in the first place and they may be empty for a couple months during the winter because their workers are going to Florida or going wherever else to earn some money okay Frank and then come back to Warren I think we're talking about the definitions at and I printed out the it's it's the third page the pages aren't numbered actually four page four year round ownership units and year round rental units and then there's a statement that they can't be used as short-term rental I think that's the content text that we're talking about here correct um so we're talking about units which are occupied as principal residences in chadam um and and they qualify a as their principal residents and to Warren's point that means half a year but still that that's that's the definition um so in that context I think you know you why is it a problem to allow someone who's a principal residents to have a couple of short-term rentals I I just don't see the issue that's kind of where I am um you're not going to have an investment uh if you can only rent it for two short-term rentals okay Warren um to that point I would say I'm certainly open to uh Bend where I have uh um um found myself on this issue to say that if you wish to be um a tenant um that you can sublease for say two months a year I have no problem with that um as for the workforce housing issue um I don't think that creating Workforce housing in the in the west chadam or in th neighborhood centers is consistent with the Mandate that we've had all the way through the Strategic plan um what we're trying to do is create yearr round housing people living there in a more affordable including attainable um housing affordable housing but certainly the majority of all the housing units will not be that they'll be market rate units but presumably less expensive presumably they would be more modest as well if they were requireed ired to be lived in year round um but I'm I would also say too I would expect um that the initial development of any of these property is very likely to be by a developer who will own them and rent them out so it's going to be rentals yeah um and I would say those rentals ought to be restricted to um a year rental and I would say that there ought to be flexibility for a tenant to sublease for if you say two months that's you know a reasonable amount to go hop in the trailer and go to the Grand Canyon and back I mean that's fine I'm just saying that there's plenty of places in town where you can do that already there are no places in town where we can have affordable attainable and lower cost mixed use multifam to develop a neighborhood um and this is a place where I think we need to bend on the side of ensuring that people are physically living there the whole time otherwise we're not going to achieve it can I ask just for a clarification here if a de we we have no say soone whether it's a a sale of a property for ownership or it's a rental that that's off the table for us so from a clarification standpoint if if a developer comes in and puts four units in sells them that's really not any different than a single family home right from the standpoint of can they go out and rent and uh put short-term rental in can do you mean can they buy because because this yeah this when they talk about uh yearr round ownership I'm I'm not sure if that's if that applies in this case where you can't set up a short-term rental I I'm just not I'm just looking for a clever ification and maybe you can help me with that Katie so yes it is in the proposed bylaw definitions it is so that if it's if it's a rental or property or if it's an ownership property the way it's structured right now no short-term rentals that's the way the language is yes that's right okay could I make a comment Mr chair okay please just trying to get through the list I know I know um so just a couple things I think it is structured that way I I think we were my impression was that attorney tman had a somewhat broader view on this issue than our previous attorney and the idea was just to take a look at the bylaw and see if the wording could be simplified or changed to reflect that broader view in fact I felt his interpretation was that if we simply say nothing um short-term rentals are automatically prohibited prohibited because we don't specifically permit them that's what that that's not precisely true pris but you're close yeah so it was somewhat broader so um I was thinking we just wanted to go back at this and see what the board ideally would like um to do Visa V short-term rentals in both the case of rental units and ownership units and then have attorney t tellerman review the wording and give us some new wording I have one more comment I'll try to be quick I'm just reading this page four that we're looking at and I'm understanding all of these definitions are viav the definition of qualified household that's right which is a little different than what we're wanting to discuss here we're wanting to discuss what is it for everybody um whether qualified household or not what is it for ownership what is it for renters just across the board what do we want to do about shortterm rentals and I'd like to propose that we say at least 10 months a year with the allowance of eight weeks a year renting out their unit something like that you mean for every 10 10 months is ownership and and two months rental or say it again whether whether they just take this might not work but just taking a broad view of everything everybody whether they fit into the qualified household category or they're buying that expensive condo that the developer built that whether they own it or rent it that we're just going to say our opinion on short-term rentals as a board is that they have to reside there 10 months a year but they could rent it out up to two months something like that so it allows for those F people who want to live there and make a little extra money in June and July that they can do that I I think that's a a marvelous compromise I think that's great okay Charlene is that reasonable for you y yeah Bob do you think that we can because you were questioning whether we could enforce this or whatnot do you think that this would work I don't know if we can enforce it it really doesn't um it doesn't um deal with the only issue that we're talking about relevant here which is occupancy occupancy and whether it's rented or double rented or so you know it doesn't matter if nobody's living there for portion of the year that's the that's the problem that's the key and I don't think we can do anything about that that's right okay I'm okay with this okay and all right Warren no I would agree that there's no way you can force somebody to live in something that they own a rent how about the the 10mth two month the um U I have no problem with uh backing off a little bit of requiring year round rentals to make it say 300 days a year yep um and you know I had done some thinking it it's really for staff to to do it but my suggestion was still is that if you just go to the the use table and you put a footnote on the residential section that says leases of less than 360 days duration on new residential units whether by the owner or less ease are not allowed yeah well and the footnote covers the covers everything we've talked about I think I think we have a consensus on on this 10mth and two-month approach I'd like to suggest we work have some uh wording worked up on that to as they say staff would be the one and I'm willing to go right ahead with this because I'm interested in in in just refin uh refining this as best we can now knowing that it might need adjustments in the future I firmly believe that that's going to be the case on any one of these topics so that's that's good uh on the next one I would just suggest that we could work up language uh um I'll work up something with um uh with Christine and and Katie about what a preliminary site plan review of mix s sites would be it's it doesn't need to be complicated but bring forward at perhaps the next meeting or so on what that would be and where where it should be located I just wanted to put that in here because I thought it was an important item did you have something else Katherine Katie might have oh I'm sorry on the previous point Sorry I think um staff will work together to try to propose some wording um I'm just not sure um just based on Warren's last comment unless I misunderstood his comment was that for no less than 360 days is that what you had I said 300 300 okay okay yeah I I my my reaction is is not to put it in a footnote but put it right up front in in the text and and I would because I would also like to have Town Council you review this and make sure it's clear with them so that we don't get any confusion once we put this into uh effect okay um next um this is something that I discussed with um with Christine and Katie and after the um the um meeting head with Union Studios and I'm wondering if we should look at the minimum side of this with res on the residential piece here here's my thought on this which one are I'm sorry which we're on we're on minimum maximum parking requirement for uses okay mostly I'm looking at this on the residential side I think when you have a residential unit like this um my assumption is one bre units will not be dominant maybe two B units would be the more likely character but even if it is a one-bedroom unit it's likely you have uh you may have a couple there two vehicles Is Not Unusual I think if we um go down all the way down to one as as as a minimum uh essentially we're going to be running running into issues with parking especially from what we see in the town center right now I would like to suggest one and a half and I think after I discussed this later on with uh with Union Studios they seem to concur with this that this is something that it be much more reasonable to do um if there was a reason to wave it we still have uh an ability to do that because if there's shared parking or link parking that that can be justified then we can adjust it that way but at least it would give us an ability to set a a bottom limit if we think that there's more residential in this particular site that is being submitted versus commercial as an example and that that would give us that flexibility to do it this is my suggestion um I'd like to hear from the board members though I concur yeah um I would concur but I I think it would be useful again to actually put in the text uh that there is flexibility on the part of the board it's there already it's just that this was something that I thought but the one and a half is I want them to start at this and let them demonstrate that they can go down yeah and that's why I'm wondering why we're one and a half when we know two is what we want or need and have the flexibility to not do to but if we see if we start start with one and a half never going to get more I I see what you're saying well we started with this range a while ago this was a suggestion by uh the commission and we we seem to adopt this approach um but but we have that restriction in downtown for instance yeah we do and and it's two and we know when the person comes in oh you we know you're not going to get there right yeah so we we've dealt with it fine but if we ever had it one and a half we would never ever get you know what we need what you this is a new place and and it's possible to could be two I think we we want a lot of flexibility here that's our leverage for Parks that's our leverage for all kinds of other stuff so so why not make it to and have that leverage um that helps us with all the other St plan use that as a negotiating point for other amenities that we're looking for yeah Charlene are you actually thank you Bob you you said it great and also people have company you need someplace for company to park so and nobody has half a car oh that's true what do you think any any issu Jerry stall has so my question for the board would be whether or not you want to keep it as to the minimum and to the maximum because you don't want to create excess parking that's not needed or do you just want to keep it at two because right now we had it as one minimum two maximum yeah I'm hearing just just two right just two just leave it as two because during your preliminary site plan that's a lot of times where you're going to have that conversation absolutely I think yeah and then we can change things or write new requirements yep U there's a trend throughout the country to eliminate uh parking requirements um and it was done in San Diego where one of my sons lives it's it was just I think in a I think it was Austin Texas um so there there that is the trend to get away from minimums and uh just to let the developers do what they think is necessary to support whatever activity they're proposing like they want build Apartments they would want to have a parking space for their um now having said that um I agree we should have minimums here um and in particularly since we don't have any public parking in in in the area it's not like we don't have parking we have Job Lots which is I don't think I've ever seen it filled we got the the post office where if you go and post a letter there no one's ever parked there so we have plenty of parking actually it's just not public parking um so right but we're we're I think the the residential piece is going to change that whole part of it um there's there's no residential on the ocean state lot there's no residential with the post office site there you put some residential in there you're going to get a lot more Vehicles you can't put residential in Ocean State really because of the airport I'm just using that as a as discussion point but I think once you add the residential piece I think we have to be a little bit conscious that that you're going to have visitors and I think Bob was right on this one you're can have visitors in another car yeah I I don't know what the future holds but it would be wonderful if if the town said Well we'd like to have some public parking in this you know what is the second most important center and maybe do something along those L and the way to and the way to do that is the town would have to purchase the property and then build the of course of course we're off track here I'm sorry I just wanted to give it kind of an overview good but in terms of two per dwelling unit you suggest one and a half um why not this is really being driven by bedroom rather than dwelling unit that is I mean you could have a dwelling unit with three bedrooms and a dwelling unit with one bed I think whether it's one or two bedrooms it's still two cars I think Bob's right about this no I I think that's absolutely right if you have a working couple they're going to each have a car all right one bedroom yeah I'm I'm happy to go with two okay all I was happy to go with one and a half but that was only because I thought the board would never go for two but I think two is the right answer because we don't have to require two because every developer's proposal is going to have and as we have in other places Park yeah we we can manage this as part of a site plan review I I like that option I like the idea that Bob brought up of using this to look at possibility with other amenities if it makes sense for the particular site that they're proposing on so I think it's a good idea I think two is good I think we can always negotiate in the preliminary site plan as you're saying that gives us the flexibility to say Hey you know you don't have to have two parkings but we want some green space here or you want a little you know Courtyard there or something a community space so I think there's no harm in going with two and it also is another way that we mitigate the unintended consequence of the BSC so okay uh now let's uh deal with the um the density bonus piece um I I uh looked at this and I was reading this um wasn't quite sure I was reading this correctly and I'd like to have the board help me and see if I'm reading this in the wrong context section s if you go to the draft it says any new or rehabilitated development involving two or more dwelling units shall provide 20% of the dwelling units as deed restricted affordable and or retainable housing units that's all fine the next sentence is the one that threw me for a curve the applicant shall meet the requirement by either constructing and D to right restriction intivity or uh intivity a dwelling unit or by a payment in lie of providing a fractional unit and or combination in accordance with the following I read that as saying that he he is not going if he wants to do five units as an example he can do a payment in Li and he doesn't have to build it there's nothing in here that says that he requires it or even if it does someplace else this almost conflicts with that and I don't think that's our intent I think we always wanted if that fifth unit was going to be in there we wanted that to be affordable attainable and it was a requirement to be yeah I I I think that's an intention for sure and I agree that we should clarify that because you know it's clearly the intention yeah we just need another bullet at the bottom that says I'll I'll I I'll work with uh with Gloria and other because I think some of this was put together by uh by Gloria and I'll work with her on clarifying their language I when I read section uh8 it seemed to be more definitive there but then when you have one section of your bylaw which is somewhat more lenient than the other section of bylaw developer can applicant can say well it says I can do that here so I don't really have to do it even though it's more restrictive over here this is in conflict with that and we've run into that in the past so I I just want to make sure that this is clear whether it's you know five units eight units or whatever those units that once you get to that upper number it has to be built not not an option with payment the only option we should make a clarification the only option should be two three and four you can do a payment on L that's the only time is the way I look at it it's a percentage says for the fifth one you build it yeah yeah yeah and as Mr chair as I recall all the board's discussion on this we to my memory we very definitely as much as possible wanted to avoid payment in L right and not incentivize payment in L but get that unit built and that's why we were thinking as of five as sort of the base Baseline because then the mandatory um affordable attainable is 20% um which is a little better than the 25% for a 40b so it it gives some attractiveness um to the developer and so yes I to my memory we definitely wanted that unit built okay uh Warren um this was one of the the very first things I think there was unanimity of that in fact payments in L are not to be encouraged and are bet to prohibited and and and I'm in agreement wording that I have in my yeah ver copy of the draft really um is is drafted I think perfectly to indicate that um if you come up with 20% of the units and it's got a more than an even number yeah that you have to build the the even numbers and you pay there's a payment in Li for the fraction period um you can't require a um deed restricted in perpetuity on 02 housing units right so they're carved out saying okay if for the fractional units you must make a payment in Li y not you have the option to you must but you got to build the even and that's the way I read it very clearly so I I'll work with glory and coming up with some language on this um all right now all right the what I have four minutes I want you to I want you to think about this all right because we'll pick this up afterwards I want to propose something on the density and I don't know if this is something that the board will accept um I I think you heard that I was concerned with the density I'd like to propose a compromise associated with this because I think we would be more successful in getting approval and it passed um and the reason why I'm thinking about this is how did why did we even get to this point why did we do a build on analysis well the one of the first times that we went back to uh community outreach was October of 2023 uh Ryan chrisenberry our planner um Katie was there I was there Warren was there the public was the one that brought this issue up that's that's a lot of density why haven't you done a bill now analysis um how how is this going to impact our infrastructure that's the reason why we did the we asked for the BC to be produce this I'm concerned if we go all the way to 12 that that might tip the scales here we might not get to 2/3 I I propose and I'll support and changing my point of view on this and going going to eight and and I'd like to encourage the board members to consider that as a possibility because I think we can get uniform support by our board and that's going to make a whole heck of a lot of difference when we go forward with this during our public hearings and our vot votes and recommendations I don't know that you need to actually talk about that this minute I would we need to do our regular business beginning at 5:00 think about this and we'll revisit this after our regular business is done I've been working on that by the way come up with something I had to get past my own hesitations okay did you Mr chair did you want to go to regular business or do you and reconsider the density after or did oh no I want to reconsider that after our regular business and how about the boundaries have like two minutes um you want to go to regular business I think we want to wait until y after for anything more juicy although you brought up one thing we need a green space Recreation Area Community area something yeah if there's apartments there needs to be a green space for kids to play or people to just that that can come up in later yeah I didn't in our site plan consideration and our our I I realize that but we really don't have much in the in the existing bylaw now to say we need something it's true it's in our site plan criteria site plan review criteria um we might we might do that as part of that that little section on on review of a complex site uh I think we can also ask for a provision there for for that that's a good point though okay um okay I think uh it's five o'clock right now let's begin with our minutes let me pull those out there's minutes from December 9th and our working session and a regular session and December 23rd let's begin with the working session on December 9th there any comments by the board members on this uh Frank um West chadam Neighborhood Center starting there dropping down five L four lines line beginning density I have eight units per acre okay the Barnhill Pump Station may be able to support eight insert units per acre I I actually had several comments on this because I think the statements aren't quite consistent to what um the DPW director's comments were um Let me throw out some of mine and I would suggest that some editing be done on this and we revisit this um just like you said right right after on the third line over it says density of 8 units per acre iner a new s sentence there there are capacity impacts to each of the pump stations period that was a statement that he made and then the rest of it should be clarified that the pump stations can handle you know up to the U the base density of a five units per acre they can't handle more than that unless they're upgraded and so I want some of the language to reflect that and it was somewhat confusing when I was reading this so I'd like to have that redrafted a little bit so that there's Clarity and it's consistent with um with uh Robert Farley's uh uh uh memo that he wrote okay so in other words U Mr chair you'd like to reword this and then have the board reconsider these meeting this particular set of minutes at the next meeting I'm inserting words like where it says in have a problem with pipe capacity it's really have a problem with the gravity sewer pipe capacity because that's the only thing uh uh uh wouldn't have a problem I'm not making a motion but I just defer these until the next meeting so that they can redrafted why don't we do that yes I think and it isn't the it isn't the it's only the pumping only the pump stations and I want to make sure the pump stations it's the pump it's the pumps be clear the pump stations themselves would not have to be rebuilt that's correct the the piping would not have to have to be rebuilt right it's the pumps and they're 12 years old and they last 20 and I agree with you on that I think that that was a very important point that we're all trying to make and I want to make sure that these minutes reflect that okay so we'll take them up next time may I ask a a question about these minutes um I just noticed a change to our usual from our usual practice where rather than citing the name of the planning board member whom might have made a comment we just keep saying a member a member a member said this a member asked that so is that by Design do we are we preferring not to mention the name of board member or was it simply that it was faster I noticed that as well and I I thought it was unusual yeah that way I think it's better to identify the speaker if we can that's an easy enough thing it wasn't an intentional change by any means okay we will do that going forward okay okay we'll correct it with this one as well okay uh I have one other question on the 9th we had a workshop session and then we had the regular business meeting did we actually vote to close out the work Workshop s or did we just did oh we did vote okay it was just I couldn't remember cuz I made the motion oh okay all right thank you it's a good suggestion Charlene we'll do that um next is we have a continued public hearing uh public hearing pursu two more sets of minute the regular meeting minutes of the 9th and then the 23rd right we have to do those meeting minutes oh you want to do okay so I get what you're saying yeah we're only deferring the work just this one yeah all right then let's go to the ninth regular minute meeting uh minutes are any comments or questions I had none I would move approval of the December 9 uh 2024 regular meeting minutes I'll second that okay well roll call vote Katherine he I approve uh Warren chain Warren chain approve uh shter b word sha approve Charlene Greenhall charling greenal approve uh Frank Sher Frank Sher I approve and art sprw I approve and then I would suggest that we defer the meeting minutes of the 23rd so that names could be inserted and we'll take those up at the next meeting good point okay agreed thank you all right then now we can go to the continued public hearing this is um adoption or change of a zoning ordinance or bylaw citizens petition impacts uh citizen petition impact chatam Conservancy District setbacks and I see that you are here and if you could again explain the this the uh you know what what is that you're trying to achieve associated with this I think if you start there and then you can get to some nitty-gritties do my best so for the record that ELD with impact chadam um we brought this forward we reviewed it last summer we continued till now and we had a couple one minor change where we didn't have the most up to-date previous bylaw in our revisions but the revision the revised section or the the bolded sections in The Proposal have not changed so in 2012 we adopted a bylaw about accessory structures and in 2024 somebody found a loophole or a consequence of that that the setback to the Conservancy District did not apply to these accessory structures um it certainly wasn't what was intended and for 12 years after that accessory structure bylaw was in place everybody was honoring that setback we're looking at it that it's really a large change from business as usual that we had this setback it was created we had a 1966 1979 in 1985 we expanded Upon Our Conservancy districts creating the setback and to make such a great change I'd rather hear from town meeting to say yes we want stand alone garages or we want pools to be placed closer to the water and if town meeting wants that wonderful we'll move forward and we'll put in pools and we'll put in the the detached structures within the Conservancy District setback but I think the town meeting really should have the say in the matter rather than an interpretation change so far after the bylaw was passed so this is principally something that creeped up where a pool was considered the structure and it could uh um be set at the setbacks according to this bylaw it was previously drafted that before 2012 yeah if you wanted to put a pool within say 50 ft of a flood plane y it was you either needed a special permit or a variance in order to do that between 2012 and 2024 that was honored but after 2024 or if you want to put a pool right at the top of a Coastal Bank or a flood plane under zoning you can mhm and that was not the intention of the 1985 bylaw okay uh anything else you want to brief us on associated with this because I was going to have the board ask some questions no I think that the question and answer would be the best Katherine you want to begin thank you yeah I just had a question so you're say and I just want to be clear that you're saying that the change that came in the Implement in the implementation of the bylaw you could say in 2024 was due to a legal in a varying legal interpretation of what was what is written in black and white exact the letter of the law and if you read the bylaw carefully you'll see that the accessory structures nowhere in there and I gave you a copy a clean copy of the existing it states that accessory structur shall meet the the side yard the abuts set back to the property line as required utility shed shall meet the abutters they're not nowhere within that 2012 Amendment does it state that these structures will meet the Conservancy District setback so and so since it's not clearly stated even though it was intended there was a legal interpretation that allowed it by without a special permit correct correct okay and that's that's the problem that you're addressing correct okay great just wanted to be clear on that thank you uh Warren any comments or questions well only that I would um applaud the idea of trying to memorialize what was the standard practice and honoring for 12 years what was generally understood as the intent of the bylaw um the question I might have is in that 12 years are you aware of issues that came up um problems objections by I don't know developers homeowners others um which might cause um town meeting now to say well yeah he's right that was the intent at the time but that 12 years told us taught us that maybe it wasn't the right intent so it's shouldn't be memorialized it should be changed Yeah question do you have any insights as to what that 12 years of experience might have indicated was the indicate the the position of the town with respect to uh the intent I would say the bigger change that's come about is the popularity of pools there are dozens of properties in town that were developed the house is set back 50 ft from the top of the Coastal Bank there's a lawn going out to the Coastal Bank itself there's a prime location for a pool and so for those Property Owners there's an advantage to deny this bylaw where they would be able to join the pool Club um it was not the intent and when those properties were developed the pool was not considered otherwise they would have pushed the house back in order to make that that setback work thank you and no other questions thank you um B no none um Charlene nothing uh Frank no questions all right um I have no questions either um just well one uh the conserv district is more than just the flood plane is that correct yes yeah so is there opportunities that you're outside the flood plane and you're in a you're still within the Conservancy district and that might lend itself to allowing something like this so and and I don't have a particular I'm just if if there is an area which is outside the flood plan that's the biggest issue I I can use my own property as an example I have Conservancy District on my property my house and all other structures have had to set back from that Conservancy District right however in in the newest interpretation of this I could put a pool a pool there yeah right up there yeah which I would never do but I could do that okay yeah all right so that's that's a question is that something you also wanted to restrict too because that's that's what we have done for about a decade when this was first implemented we want to give the town meeting an opportunity to say what do they want and again historically we've held 50 feet from either the flood plane or the top of a Coastal Bank which a Coastal Bank has a slope to it you're not putting a pool on that um but regardless there's been a 50-foot setback from flood plane Coastal Bank since 1985 yes okay so I think the next step is we need to reach out and see if there's any public comments and support or uh or uh against this um I'll first ask if there's any public who have comments and support of this uh proposed bylaw change and ifia your name please uh Bill Riley yeah unfortunately no longer a voter but still uh concerned the uh uh I just want to be sure so in the 50-foot setback the Conservation Commission considers the first 25 ft a no disturb zone is that correct no you're should well aware the Conservation Commission considers the first 50 feet a no disturb Zone all right so if somebody wanted to put a swimming pool inside the 50- foot setback they're going to go to the Conservation Commission and they're going to say it's a no disturbance on you can't put your I've I've had a conversation with the former chair of the Conservation Commission who would that be Janet Williams okay keep comments to the board please absolutely the the long and the short of it or the the truth of it is the Conservation Commission can be bought you give them a shiny Wetland you give them a land replication project and they can grant a variance for work within that 50 foot Zone and that happens not all the time there are times that they will fully deny and protect that 50 foot but there are times s when a project can be proposed that has a better benefit to the environment because of the mitigation offered so conservation is so so you're saying that the conservation may allow it with certain conditions based on the way it's it's functioning now this this would put more criteria in place on where they can and can't put that pool is essentially what you're saying recently the commission heard a project project with a proposed pool where there's an existing basketball court within that 50 foot and the basketball court will be removed the pool will be put in place and you things are better for the environment but it so Bill I'm not quite sure are you in favor of this well no I'm just I'm just trying to figure out because I was asking for people who are in favor and support this first because the next group I would ask were if you're against it I just well I just have questions about okay right I mean because I'm trying to figure out U you know what's the we're talking about things that are not in the Wetland they're outside the Wetland this is strictly the con uh conserv district is the what they referring to oh that's I'm sorry yeah so we're not even close to the W it just seemed to me that the Conservation Commission uh would would make a deter mination as to whether there's a benefit or or not to the protected resource I don't know just seems like it might be a better idea to leave it to them but okay um I don't see any hands raised so now I'll go to if there's anybody had opposition to this and would like to speak you raise your hand and not seeing anybody I think with that we probably unless there's another reason we can close this um hearing Mr chairman I move we close the hearing I second okay the roll call vote uh Katherine hupper yes uh I approve let's close the public hearing uh Warren chain Warren chain approve uh Bob wsha Bob wter approve charlon Greenhall charling greenal approve and Frank Sher Frank sh approve and arts spr approve um if the board wants to vote we can vote on this now we can vote on this at a later date we have time are we are we voting to make a recommendation to the town meeting y Mr chairman I would move that we recommend this um proposed bylaw to the town meeting or or to the select board no it's to the town to the town meeting to town meeting select board already referred it to us for the public hearing all right all right M chairman I second that okay uh let's any discussion on this point has this been through Town Council it's a Citizens petition right it is a Citizens petition so it Town Council will see it but as it's a Citizens petition um right but I mean has Town Council review the proposed changes to the zoning as set out in the yes when we had originally seen this we had sent it to Town Council I they did not make comments on the substantive nature of it at that point in time right Town Council does review the warrant as it moves forward through Tom meeting but again as this is a Citizens petition any changes actually need you know they could be recommended but they would need to come from the actual certainly I I I was just worried about recommending something to a town meeting that Town Council thought we shouldn't do or couldn't do I was just wondering but you're saying it's going to be subject to Town Council review anyway it's not not in to change whether or not this board is supporting it but they typic Council typically reviews the entire town meeting warrant okay I'm fine okay so if I may Additionally the attorney general reviews everything if this were to be approved just a minute the public hearing has been been closed so um further discussion the AG's office does review all zoning amendments corre they pass and and make their way up to them that's right um so let me do a roll call vote on this we're voting on an approving recomend make making a recommendation on approval of this proposed citizens petition okay um Katherine hurn yes um I agree that we should give a recommendation to the citizens petition uh to our annual town meeting May 2025 and Warren chain Warren chain I recommend it also thank uh Bob worter uh I also recommend it uh Charlene Greenhall I also recommend um Frank chair I recommend it too uh Arts BR and I recommend that also thank you much okay next Gillis Road subdivision uh this is a release of statement of conditions do I have uh someone from the applicant who would like to speak to this point you have two people on two regard to this subject uh Could you um uh introduce yourself and explain uh what you're uh looking for on this sure uh my name is uh Jack Gillis I'm the owner of two of the Lots in question and I'm joined by my cousin who is representing the owners of the other lot in question Kate shell um in a nutshell um this uh situation has been recommended by the uh board to as board staff to free all of the lots for from this encumbrance um it was originally placed on the properties in two forms uh at one point it was related to the construction on Lots five and six and this was in 2001 and that was um taken care of by Provisions for improvement on Gillis Road and required a construction Bond uh there was a second section of the requirement that imposed a covenant on Lots 378 and N which were vacant at the time and which required improvements to Gillis Road prior to the release of these Lots from the Covenant now interestingly the Covenant was never prepared or recorded So on October uh 25th of 2021 the planning board considered a requests by the owners of lots three and 8 that's myself and my wife um for release of the Lots 1 through nine from the statement of conditions and we sought the release in order to a in order to build our house on it uh the staff memo for that meeting stated that appears that all the conditions of section one had been completed due to a board member inspection and the issuing certificant of use occupancy in 2002 and 2004 for those houses that were constructed on five and six at issue on the October 25th meeting was section two of the statement of conditions which required improvements to Gillis Road prior to the release of the covenants on Lots 37 8 and n and uh my cousin and I are representing the owners of those lots on October 25th the board voted to release lot three uh which my wife and I own from the statement of conditions on upon receipt of a $4,000 bond for Road improvements moving forward then in October last 2024 after completion of construction on lot 3 uh we engaged a construction company to regrade Gillis Road on behalf of all the residents of Gillis Road this include pulverized and regrading the road installing new gravel and compacting the roadway on November 25th 2024 the planning board granted uh our request to release the construction Bond of $4,000 plus interest due to the completion of the required improvements on Gillis road now at that meeting the planning board uh was considering a request by multiple members of the Gillis Family to issue a formal release of the 2001 statement of conditions as a whole for Lots one and N the statements of uh of conditions uh in a memo from January 13th today the planning board meeting is now recommending the planning board staff is now recommending that the board favorably consider this request and release all of the Lots complicated well done Jack um I I do recall the previous uh meeting that we had I was on the board at that time um I think um several of the board members did look at the road and said it needed attention I have been out there and I've seen the the work that was done and you've addressed the issues that I was concerned with personally so with that I'd like does board have any questions of the applicant on this yeah Katherine I'll make a comment um Mr chair I also remember this matter um from the 2021 meeting and uh as long as the concerns of the board at that time have been addressed and you've inspected the property and you feel it's been addressed I would agree that um I would support releasing the Lots any other comments or questions of the epicate on this U with that um perhaps we pursue a motion to release uh all the lots lots one through nine uh from the original statement of conditions so moved have second I will second all right I I'll do a roll call vote uh Catherine hurn approve Warren chain Warren chain approve Bob warsha Bob wter approve Charlene Greenhall charling greenhalge approve Frank Shear Frank Shear approve and art sprew I approve uh okay preliminary subdivision 48 salt marsh way this is east Southeast we' like to very much yeah thank you very much thank you thank you good afternoon for the record that alri GE Southeast I should put on a different hat or wear a different shirt you're that bad penny so I have before you a preliminary subdivision plan buff of salt marsh we have an oversized lot with a big Wetland right between the road and the developable portion of the property on there we have a 134 year old structure which is in very good shape the connelles purchased the property recently and they um they love the house but they would also like a modern house the property is suitable for a house guest house but with a six-bedroom existing home um excessive demolition or change would have to be done to make that the two-bedroom in order to get the larger home out by the water I say by the water to the to the north um we looked at this and said you know we could fit a panhandle in here that puts the historic home on its own lot no changes would have to be made we can preserve that and then they would have a fresh lot to be able to put their their proposed home upon the property itself is rated for 11 bedrooms so they we have room for a five bedroom we now an Innovative alternative septic system and so that would be more in kind with what they're looking for for development while preserving the um the existing home we have a driveway it's 10 ft wide paved it's got a a 12in berm on one side of it so we have 11 ft of asphalt we'd want to make that a shared driveway because that does cross a river Wetland there's a flood plane nearby we have a little bit of everything going on out here so with that it's a question of the adequacy of this Shar driveway generally we've looked at 12 feet as the standard or what we've offered or what we've put in for the for the planning board um we'd like to keep it at 11 ft as it is we're happy to augment the shoulders there are two foot shoulders give or take on either side of this we can augment that with a grass pave if the planning board would like something a little more stable on the sides or if 11 ft is adequate we'd be very happy with that as there is work that will be done we're going to be looking to meet the um storm water management act so we'll have 100e storm event storm water to um to install if you could go to the second page ver oh excellent so we have a large potential area of contribution we haven't done a full survey of the road yet uh based on the areal lar this is the area of contribution that ends up in a catch Basin here in a low Point here and the rest of it comes through and gets into that Wetland without any treatment so we started looking at it and saying can we put in some sort of storm water to cut off everything coming down the road here the same over here what can we put in to pull the storm water off the pavement and then the remainder pointing it in keeping it out of the Conservancy District that would be an enhancement of the environmental benefit and after the construction of the home we know that that driveway is in agent shape um it'll have to be reconstructed at that point that's when this would all be triggered waiver wise I we left the waiver question in there without really specifying it it's a question of that adequacy of the driveway is that suitable for the two houses that we propose out here again if the planning board can find that it's suitable we're great and if not then we'd be looking for a waiver from that that typical policy of 12 ft that we've seen so with that if there are questions I'm happy to answer them um like to go through um comments made by our our planner I'll just go through the subdivision criteria uh for a plary plan um the first one on uh bound the boundaries North Point Etc that was satisfied owner's name satisfied Butters to be completed existing and propos of lines of Street ways and easement was satisfied proposed system of drainage included adjacent to natural water rays in general I don't think you proposed anything yet other than verbally right but you don't have any definitive we have it's it's satisfied for a preliminary plan purposes proxim brownies of proposed Lots satisfied names approximate location area of dimensions of existing and nearby streets and waves was satisfied um Topography of of the landine in general was satisfied and ke keymap was satisfied um so again this is a preliminary and if the board members have any comments or questions associated with this of the applicant um please uh bring them up Katherine do you have I actually don't have any question questions I think um for the preliminary we we just need to let you know what we need to see when you bring the formal before us um I'm just going to can you outline can you go back to your former um display and can you use the laser to outline the two lots because it's just the the it's a little hard to read the plan oh sure sure so outline what the two lots will be and how the access of the lot so the to each lot the common boundary would be right in the center line of the driveway okay the lot with full Frontage would come up to the Northwest all the way back into here and around and that's where they're going to build the new the new house they they're looking somewhere in this area here okay there's a view off to the north northwest and they'd like to take advantage of that um the other lot would be the remainder which has 33 ft of Frontage where 20 ft would be required for a panhandle it's one of those odd panh handles where we don't actually have the flag pole part right the flag pole lot it's just the limited Frontage right and the historic building would stay where it's currently located yes this enables them to keep that right where it is and not have to mess with it okay and the one thing you're asking uh for from us is to go with the 11 foot wide driveway rather than 12 foot yes yes and what can we do with this driveway for the two homes okay all right I don't really have any other questions thank you uh warri this is not really my area of expertise but I don't have questions thank you uh by wor shapter yeah I I'm a little little more information the 11t is being asked for because going to 12 would compromise the sizes of the Lots or it would just be a a a way to save some money on this property it would be a much bigger ask before conservation oh this is all in conservation yeah that's the 200 foot from the river that is 100 ft from the bordering vegetated Wetland um everything's in conservation and then there's Coastal Bank up on the North side of the property so by by increasing the roadway here we're now asking for a variance not only from conservation but it's under the wetlands protection act right so maintaining that 11 foot would be great to help at that end okay uh all set yeah uh Charlene I have nothing uh Frank Shar no questions okay I do have a few um so this is a subdivision yes um I want to put a clarification in there I think our standard for something like this starts at 16 ft not at something else uh we have waved this down in certain aspects the late most recent one was 79 Forest Beach Road um we uh we had many challenges there we we ended up with a 12T wide access roadway through there and I think that that's something that we should stick with here it's that's narrow as it is um yes it is challenging you you are right about that but I think that it's important if this is going to be used as an access site it needs to try and stick with some of the criteria we have we got to remember we've taken 16 ft down on the 12 not the norm is not 12 could I ask where is the 16 Fe it's in the subdivision standards excellent can you tell me where well it's it's in the criteria for the roadway widths depending upon whether it's a minor road but this isn't a road this is a driveway yeah it's if it's a subdivision it's it's looked at and reviewed as a road not a driveway not the Panhandle portion of a lot is it that's not how I we've we've had panhandles before and we also were using I think there was some in the Town Center we also used 12T there too that's not unusual I've seen 12 and under the subdivision rules a minor Street type A subdivision is 18 ft required and that's for five Lots or more okay well up I think I think it's something that we need to take a look at put that on the radar for the for the definitive I don't want to necessarily say it's it's got to go one way or another but I think if you go out there and you take a look at it the edges of the road their current driveway they're all crumbling off it's it's not in a condition that's going to be stable there needs to be work done to stabilize it so I think when you go out there and take a look at it you'll see that more work needs to be done maybe you can get away with something other than that um you suggested a couple things I'd like to know what the Conservation Commission would be interested in and proposing there but I think that that needs some attention I don't think it has an effect on us moving forward with with uh accepting and uh the preliminary plan as you have it and the other major thing that I think that you may or may not be aware of it but um the town has uh new storm water regulation that were effective as of December 15th 2024 you should be making yourself aware of that because it may have an impact on how you go about uh addressing the storm water on this site that that's about all the the other point that was brought up in in uh the planner's comments was the board may wish to impose a condition on the on the definitive subdivision plan when it is submitted that states the following Lots A and B shall not be conveyed into separate ownerships until such time as the existing garage structure is relocated to one of the two lots or demolished I think we've had something similar to this before when we ran into this issue uh any other Comer questions by the board so uh I guess we should make a motion to accept the preliminary plan uh subdivision plan um with the one uh condition in some of the um uh comments that we had about addressing the roadway uh conditions and storm water regulations for the definitive plan just to be clear the um the both of these structures are the 50 Foot setbacks we're not doing something that you just told us we shouldn't do in your other hat do the other thing here neither of these structures will be accessory the goal is to have a primary structure on each law each one meeting the 50 you didn't answer the question are they outside of the 50 Foot setb not only the outside of the 50 but they're both to be primary structures so they wouldn't be accessory structures and just to further muddle the the previous Inland Conservancy District only has a 25 foot setb and Coastal Conservancy is the one with a 50 foot set back but both will be conforming and they have to be in order to do the subdivision without zoning relief okay um so do I have a motion uh Mr chairman I move we accept the preliminary subdivision um with the provision that for the definitive plan it shall meet all the requirements of the subdivision control law y any waivers would need to be strictly outlined um and please only include the layers that we really need for the definitive from your CAD understood do I have a second I second the motion as stated uh I'll do a roll call vote Katherine helper uh I I approve that we accept this preliminary subdivision plan with conditions as stated by in motion yes uh Warren chain Warren chain approve Bob wsha Bob W approve Charlene Greenhall charling green held approve uh Frank Shear I approve and art sprw I approve thank you much okay uh next item on the agenda is site plan approval for one-year review of pedestrian and vehicle safety at 4874 89 Main Street the jam Squire do I have a uh appic oh Bill yes good afternoon Bill Riley on behalf of one drop operating and the cham Squire you know a year was Gone by things have gone very well relative to uh concerns about uh people in the streets and yeah we think it's been a real success so there's been no drainage problems so I think it's I think it's working very well I I think the only thing we were to review at this point was just The Pedestrian and vehicle safety there was nothing else no is no other issues that were um uh to be re reviewed after one year right just want to clarify that with the board members um I don't know if anyone is been out there and seeing activities associated with this no no no be issue yeah if you're not out there at 11:30 on a summer night I think since there's been no incidents I think it's been universally reported that there's been no incidents of concern we were concerned about CR in on the sidewalk or lines standing you know piling up in the parking areas and the conflict of vehicles and pedestrians and since there's been no reports of any incidents by either fire police Community Development Department I would I'd actually like to move that we if we need to vote that we vote that the applicant has complied with the review requirement do I have a second second just just for the record um have we had no comments from the public one way or the other I'm not aware of that I guess uh we not that I know they do you have any comments from the public on this on on these two issues The Pedestrian and v v issue no not not to Community Development on these because those are the only thing that we said that we want I recognize that yeah okay we did reach out to Fire and Police too just to confirm that as well lost my notes okay I I have a motion do I have a second i' second uh Charlene okay uh roll call vote Katherine Huer I approve uh Warren Chan Warren chain approve Bob wsha Bob wsha approve Charlene Greenhall charling greenal approve Frank Shear I approve and arts Brew I approve thank you very much okay okay so can we have like two minutes yes I was thinking the same thing it's been a while uh let's come back at uh 10 10 minutes to 6 e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e e okay we're uh we're back at our regular meeting this is long range planning and this is for the West chatam Neighborhood Center um discussion a continued discussion from our Workshop um okay the um last couple of items at least uh to uh begin this part is the criteria for density bonus I brought up a couple things before we took a break it's uh a a proposal it's it's not something that's definitive I'm just suggesting something so that we can get to a compromise and be more uh uh as much as we can unanimous on this as far as moving forward I'm open to hearing thoughts and discussions on this because I think this is a pretty critical item here here would Charlene so I is what you're suggesting eight units per and we keep saying acre but it's really 40,000 square ft or is it up to 8 on the density bonus uh that's that's correct um I think the five five as of right and uh up to eight as a special permit but I think the it should be very clear what we want for the affordable attainable units and their requirement to construct them the fifth one and the eighth one be required for construction if you want to go that so excuse me the eighth one's required I'm suggesting that that would be something that would be and not you can't use a payment in Li of what for the eth unit right because I thought that was always our idea right that we wanted we wanted to have multiple affordable units if we could or mult affordable attainable units and this was the way we were going about doing that we will allow you to go to eight but you have to build these affordable attainable units as part of that bonus that you were getting and the fifth and eighth must be affordable no payment Loop that's my proposal I would like to make clear on this cuz I I'm interested in having them build not just having a fund that puts the money in it and again my reading of what we have in the draft would uh preclude any payment in L except for the fractional yeah and I which couldn't be built or right uh have a deed restricted on it so there's a payment in L but all of the it's sort of Silent on that one in the first section there and that's the reason why I was uncomfortable with leaving it now it's a little bit more clear in Section 8 but I well it needs to be clear I think both I think the board is inv violent agreement that you know um it's 20% or whatever the percentages are based on and you have to build all of the even numbered units and you have you have to make a payment in Li on the fractional uh share period okay um May a comment yeah Catherine so if we require we have five as right by right um and then up to eight using the density bonus um and we're saying that the fifth and the eight must be built so that means per if they go up to eight they'll be building two affordable attainable which is 25% so um how to say this I support your suggestion um but I just think we need to take a look at that 25% because a 40b is 25% and there could be we don't want to incentivize a developer to go to a 40b because they they can just forget all the zoning that we've structured and they they can do it in such a way that they don't need to pay attention to the underlying zoning which we very much want them to pay attention to well I was I was a little bit confused on that because if you take a look at the language that we have in here yeah uh I'm not suggesting that we make wholesale changes to this I'm suggesting that if we're only interested in 20% once you go to eight how many units are affordable attainable if you're at 20% 1.6 1.6 well 20 yeah well that is 20% of no that's that's 25% if it's two out of eight that's 25% correct yes so that's the way it was structured before Oh yes and so we would have ran into that previously so if you make it 20% it's a fraction right so you would have one affordable tainable and you payment and L for the points you would have payment and L for the so I'm now I'm not quite sure if we're getting where we want to be well it's it's just an issue I mean I'm how to say this I think again what your suggestion is is a kind of compromise to mitigate the undesired effect that we saw in the BSC build out out I think it's it's a rational compromise I I certainly could support it but that issue was there before and I think our housing and sustainability director brought it up to us um before to to just we just need to consider that that if we require the fifth and the eth which I agree we should require it puts it at 25% which might in the mind of a developer push them into a 40b which might offer them some economic advantages but it offers us a disadvantage in that they're not paying attention to all this beautiful form based code that we've they don't have to pay attention to it yeah I mean but I thought that my interpretation on this is that even what it was today that if we if we only went to eight if a developer came in and was doing eight units and he was going to be building two that would be 25% not 20% so I'm not quite sure if that was intent is to focus on the 25% or the 20% well um where I come out on this is that we've had a long time to think about this we've had a lot of input from a lot of places yeah and I'm persuaded that the uh the sense of the board at the time was that we really need to create a sufficient incentive for a developer to have market-based units that will encourage them to uh increase what is permitted in the way of market-based units in order to get them to build more affordable attainable so um reducing it from 12 to 8 is going in the wrong direction my our compromise from my point of view was to limit it at 12 as opposed to 20 or something 12 is is a very small dense low density compared to surrounding towns and and uh and similar type zoning Arrangements that they have and that if you do the arithmetic of if you wanted to get the maximum 12 units per acre that's not going to give you a whole lot of attainable affordable it's going to increase the amount of market-based units that are able to be built in a meaningful way and that was what the sense of the board was at the time certainly my I was persuaded that's a way to provide um a commercial incentive to try and maximize the density but maximize what we could reasonably expect as affordable attainable so I'm I'm really U well I understand the idea that it may be more salable to the town I'm I'm persuaded that 12 units per acre is not very high compared to what is being done around us we have yet um again I may be changed I may change that view when we see the perspective of a visual graphic presentation of what it would look like at 12 but I um I think that moving it back to eight is moving in the wrong direction if we're trying to increase the amount of affordable attainable and ensure that we have a reasonable commercial incentive for a developer to have more market-based units well just just your point there we're not going backwards because right now today's zoning is four units per acre okay whatever we do more than that is an increase it's not a decrease from what it is today if the bylaw doesn't pass it stays at four units per acre and you have your current zoning so you don't get what you need I'm I'm suggesting that we might be a lot more four bedrooms per acre I'm not we not you know you're not talking about bedrooms that's not what is four units per acre well we we actually that's that's how the comprehensive Wastewater management plan was determined with was the four units that's not what's allowed that's not we don't allow multif family by right right right now we don't allow any right so we don't we wouldn't and it it it doesn't define whether it's one two or three bedrooms no I was just trying to clarify because right now we don't allow four units per acre at all anywhere business three uh no this is B3 we do I don't believe so no we don't allow we don't allow multif family oh well multif family you're correct yeah yeah that's that's where I was confused I didn't I I stand corrected this is more than what is allowed right now anything that we do is more than what is allowed by now so we're not by defining whether it's uh uh five or or eight it's still uh an improvement over what it would be if we did not pass this and I'm and I'm looking for enough support not just from our board but also uh from the town uh at two-thirds vote I think that's a high margin that's going to be put on us and I'm I'm concerned that we may not be able to achieve that by just jumping too far into this it's just this is just my point of view that's all uh Katherine I like the the rest of the board members too um I just want to make two comments one was thank you for including in the packet I think it was this time's packet the copy of the memo from our previous planner Ali satino which was dated in I think it was January 2022 yes when she summarized for the board the the the new considerations that we had to take into account and she said would we like to consider more than four units per acre so I think it's just just a bit of history on our work on this bylaw that up until that time we were working with the recommended four units per acre that was recommended in the 2014 visioning study after that we've been you know we increased it to five then we increased it to eight and then we pushed it up to 12 um I fully understand and agree with the reason you want to pull it back to eight it does give us a little issue with the numbers and the percentages which um because it's if they're going to build two and we want them to build two we don't want them to do that payment in Li it puts them at 25% which could entice them incentivize them to go to a 40b I I'm going to step a little bit outside of the box here and propose 10 units which will give us 20% a nice even 20% they got to build two units it's going to be 20% gives them some economic advantage over the 40 be CU it's not 25% also keeps us it within our zoning and our purview the planning board is going to have site plan review over this we're going to have input on what gets done um the uh in we've I'm satisfied um from my side with attorney Tan's response about the infrastructure issues that y you know if we Grant it to to developer a because he comes first and then we can't allow developer B to build because there's not the the capacity that this does not put the town in any difficult legal situation um so I'm just going to what would what would everybody think about five units by right and 10 units with the bonus and that gives us a nice 20% I'm I'm going to jump in because I just wanted to say I was going to make the same proposal and so I concur with you and that's all I need to say okay um Bob I'd like like some of your input on this yeah I um my concern is what a developer needs to do to make a property work and I um I I looked at and maybe Mike can speak more to this but um we are having trouble you know making the projects economical to the to everyone Y at 16 MH uh with you know limited amount of parking and a whole bunch of other things so if we're talking about eight and we're going to force somebody to um make two of those uh attainable even uh it's going to be and we'd love to have a park and we'd love to have more you know it's just going to be really hard so uh I'm fairly sensitive to you know how does this compare to an apartment building that somebody could just throw up there and you know that's how we would get our attainable housing so I I I I would I would think um okay if again I'm not the Builder i' I'd love to get some input more input from from my developers um but is is getting one more unit and make but it's attainable enough to make me to go from four to five and is is uh is is only getting you know or am I better off at 10 and two you know right 10 two yeah maybe that works better than four and one so I I don't know 10 is better than to me than eight so I I'll go with 10 well I it's it's all the the 25% issue and I think that that would be an issue I and and I do agree with you about that except it um 40b is is only a affordable right it isn't attainable no it's oh yes you're right only yeah so that's correct so if somebody really wants to build affordable housing that's what they're going to do but that's not what we're looking for here so um I I think it's probably not the the the way out for everybody oh I'll just do affordable here yeah I see what you're saying especially given it's a mixed use yeah property now all of a sudden you well I guess I could do affordable okay so would the would the 10 work for you would it works better than the eight so I'm going to go I'm going to Charlene say Okay um I'm I'm I'm okay with the five and the 10 okay but I'm wondering with the new um law that's coming in that we know nothing about yet which is very frustrating and the name of it just popped right out of my head um whereas we're a community what impact or whether it's a positive or A negative we don't even know that I'm guessing it's going to be a positive for us but we don't know how that's going to impact us so I just don't you know are we putting the cart before the horse when we don't don't know what color the horse is yet even it's confusing please Kathy so I think that's something to consider I think we were expecting guidance sometime in December um on seasonal that's what we heard at the home Consortium but we haven't seen anything right so we haven't seen anything yet but it would it would it will be interesting to see where the regulations come down regarding yearr round occupancy which is one of the big things within the seasonal community's designation and how it would actually work with this BW or how it would affect this bylaw um it's yet to be known but we don't have that information at this point in time I mean I I'm kind of at a Crossroads here it's like do we wait and see what that has to say or do we move five forward with the five and the four and if we learn something between you know now in town meeting where where we kind of look at each other and go wow this could be a heck of a lot better you know do we just not move forward at town meeting or well I think you always have that option right you do have that option we can pull have that option can pull that for if we make a recommendation that based on new information and an adjustment that will be much more beneficial we could put this on yeah to say future meeting maybe on the fall or whatever I mean I I would hate to not bring anything forward at this point with all the work that's I'm with you on this um you know I just don't want to to you know cut our nose off despite our face with something that is still an unknown which is really annoying but that's the state for you and new stuff okay Frank yeah I just want to get you in I think I jumped in out of place earlier I'm I'm very much much in favor of Kathleen's uh suggestion um and and it works for the 20% you bring the 20% all the way up so it solves that problem so okay I'm I could go this way too because I I'm more concerned about that 25% issue and going with 40b because then it's we don't have control of it at all so it'd be better to take the approach that Katherine has suggested um Katherine again I'm not sure if I remember attorney talman's comments correctly but I thought we we did ask him about the new law and I thought he just made a kind of blanket statement oh it doesn't affect this at all but he said that there's there won't be any effect or did I don't no I wouldn't agree with that at all I think I think looking at it it could greatly affect how easily we could perhaps deed restrict some of these units for year round occupancy so it would be much better it yes I I would expect that it will be much better I think that that's but we don't have that guidance as of yet and so I I'm not sure if that comment that perhaps he was talking about because we were also in the midst of dealing with the Adu um I think that was Adu more related but my understanding is which is actually very limited on this subject is that there would be additive in other words what we're doing now accomplishes pushes us forward to our objectives and we would also have this other Tool uh and and they wouldn't be in conflict that that that's my understanding um okay uh it would just make it easier for us is that what Katie I'm sorry just well I was just wanted to make sure I close the loop with Warren uh because um I think the the 10 to two came up be um after your statement so I wanted to your input associated with that I mean I strictly from a point of view of what we think might be more approvable by the electorate yeah the five and 10 I think is probably good y if our objective is really to try and get some units built and to include affordable and attainable where I come out is that the compromise we had was that in order to make developers incentivized to build things we need to increase the number of units that they can build and we came out at 12 per acre and that is going to and as per the draft that we've been looking at that creates a reasonable but not a large number of affordable attainable houses but if we go back when I said we're going backwards what I meant was we're going backwards on the way on the incentives for a developer to build things um and they'll build the minimum as opposed to trying to go after the incen incentives that allow them to build a larger number of market-based units which also gives us more affordable attainable units and to me the board at that time anyway was saying 12 per acre is not a very high density if you look around at other towns so I I am not in it's been very made clear to me that this is chadam we do what's right for chattam I I get you which is why we came out where I learned that way back when and I've kept that in my memory banks but having the zoning bylaw reflect this 5 and 10 may be terrific but if Builders aren't going to build anything it doesn't get us anywhere well that's true but it doesn't get built if we don't pass it so I'm well I recognize both sides of this but again I'm trying to I come down the side we have to sell it because it makes sense right but we want to have a bylaw that will incentivize the ual construction of affordable attainable more you know and market-based units and where we had come out was 12 you know is is the compromise and I therefore have seen nothing other than um unless someone can convince me that developers will find more financial incentive uh with five and 10 um than going up to our uh draft um density of 12 then I would I'm not in favor of of backing off on the financial incentives available to a developer okay um I mean if we had had this in place and they were back a backlog of developers you know proposals um that you we can say well whoa may maybe the incentives are a little too high here that doesn't seem to be our problem in the past um so I again I I'm I'm in favor of the compromise that was made to try and provide Financial incentive to developers and that and maximize the number of affordable attainable that are likely to be included which is exactly as our draft is which shows a maximum density of 12 so that's where I come out okay um well I think I'm going to ask for your definitive support one way or another on this okay I can we go with Katherine's proposal on 5 and 10 uh and I would like to hear if by Voice vote that yes you support that versus something else because we need to give direction to um to get this written up I also want to get some of the confusion that's written in there now clarified I'd like to have Gloria help us a little bit and make sure it's a little bit clear because I think the uh the whole structure of Section 8 is a little bit confusing and so I'd like her to work on that too no matter what direction we going on this um so Katherine can you give me your your direction on which way you would like to go on that yes I support the five units by right and up to 10 by special permit permit um with the requirement that the fifth unit and the 10th unit are affordable attainable and that there's no payment in L for for the fifth and and 10th and the 10th yes they have to build the units um Warren I'm really not in favor of changing the draft from the way it's written okay um Bob Worf draft yeah I I um um I I will go with 10 but I I I think you only get the L of payment for one two and three after that you have to build two you have to build one if you do five if you build more than five you have to build two you can't py off a second oh okay I see what you're saying that's a good idea okay I'd go for that yeah okay because that's special permit piece if you if you build the full 10 two have to be constructed right if you only build eight it would be money and low many no that's not what I'm saying you get to build four you want five yeah that fifth one has to be uh attainable you go to any more than that and one of them has to be attainable right you can't buy your way out of the first the first one of the second five needs to be attainable yeah okay I mean it's why we're letting them go beyond five I okay we're not going to let them go beyond five and then only still only have one attainable house that that just doesn't make any sense what the reason we're letting them go above five is because we're going to get another attainable unit out of Catherine is that okay just well the only consideration is again that say they're going to build eight uh it's going to push them into 25% and then that will again it it's just those percentages that would again incentivize them to do a 40b where they don't need to pay atten now it's so so that's the only wrinkle there it's six Market base and two attainable it isn't six Market base and to Affordable so it isn't quite pushing them into 40p no you were you were suggesting if they want to go beyond five right the next one has to be attainable first first all right right and they can go up to 10 but what if they only want to build seven like or eight like Katherine said then it's then it's a higher percentage of the of the uh attainable and then then a 40b can just wipe all of that out I think you're sort of stuck with this that every single time that you go boom boom boom to keep your 20% you have to stick with her first suggestion on this but I I like your idea I I'm goingon to I I'll defer to later after we do the next one of these okay okay because this I I don't I I think this is all so hypothetical and that that we have to wait to see what a builder is actually able to do and okay Charlene I don't want to make it compated I was fine until Bob spoke um I don't think we can do you know you get your the fifth has to be attainable and of your next five if if you're allowed to go to 10 number six I don't I don't think that's going to work um I think that's in part though where the payment in Lou came from yes and I'm remembering that Gloria actually did a very good presentation yeah about why sometimes getting the inl is actually better MH especially if it's for attainable most of the money out there right now almost all of it I think is for affordable yes there's there's literally no funding for attainable housing there's no mechanism so I think that was um you know one thing that that she discussed so I'm I'm inclined to go with the five and then the 10 and and then and then you go with the uh and somebody only wants to build eight okay that's fine then you have to do a payment in L based on the calculation that was put together here it's like yes you get to do eight but you do need to put some money in the pot to help build other housing somewhere else I hope that made sense I I think makes sense to me uh Frank yeah I'm fine with the 10 with the five and five okay uh I like what Charlene is suggesting yeah I'll I'll go with that let's move on Katherine no just that um yes I just wanted to confirm I remember Gloria speaking about that I don't remember exactly the mechanism but she did explain how sometimes accepting the payment in Lou actually can work to our advantage and particularly for attainable since there's no funding available for that all right here's what I'm going to suggest um let's draft this up let's review it we have because we've added another meeting here we have an opportunity still to interject I really wanted to get over the hump on at least this part of it and to sort of um get to the point of uh not just having Town Council review it but also um to get to the point that's all we're doing is dotting the eyes and crossing the tea and that's it but uh let me work with staff we have two weeks now uh to work on something I'm not sure if we're going to get it all done we'll have Union Studios on the 27th I think we only have one small Mission which shouldn't be a major one for business so it'll be mostly devoted to U the union Studios presentation and I'm hoping he can Enlighten us on this so that we all feel more comfortable no matter what so it we're not finalizing this but I'm I'm sort of structuring this for some um wording to to be put into by yeah yes Frank um it's very clear to me that the buildout analysis is that's been posted online is wrong oh uh oh really and I I think it should come down um I think it's giving the wrong impression down and I would I would take it down from the website um and then the question is do we need another one based on good what what we finally decide so those are my two inputs uh okay I'm not quite sure we can get that done but uh let me look into to that based on some of the adjustments that we've made in here because it will it will affect it based on the even the slight adjustments that we did here tonight can I ask a question so it's wrong in the sense that this is not what we want and we are now implementing measures to mitigate that result but you're not saying that BSC made a mistake in their interpretation oh gosh no okay right just to be clear no no no I I'm just very worried that it's conveying the wrong message yeah correct yes I agree um well it maybe the union Studio piece can clarify that a little bit more well yes but I still think it should come down yeah what's what's on the line right now or at least put some kind of a caveat like on the front page or something no I think it should come down but it's public information yeah yeah it's public information uh then we need to put a cover sheet on that says that this is based on assumptions which are now being changed that's what I suggest Justin I know I'm following you up is that something that we can do we can put it right in the title before anybody clicks on it that this is okay right that that this you know the planning board is but we didn't like it and we're changing it can can we also make sure that um the presentation on the 27th which I'll remind you I'm not going to be here for um does have these new densities in it so that they present I know that we're going to do the five um so we had asked them to do a five because it's by right an eight and a 12 we're talking with them we can ask we can actually ask them to revise don't do a 12 why I just do a five and a 10 just do a five and an eight yeah five five and a 10 do a five and a 10 all well we have three sites so we'll do five and two tens y something yeah that sounds good I would I would like to see the tens yeah can I ask a question Mr chair yes um presuming we're done with this there are two other points on your list here the confirming the boundaries of the West chadam uh Neighborhood Center area and to also Concur and then the zoning map amendment has to be drawn up and then also Frank had a question he wanted to review the oh maximum Footprints so in my humbled opinion I think that we could go ahead and consider these well you so if you agree this this was a u before your time uh Frank uh this was a reduction in size from what was before um the footprint that we had before was I think it started out at several thousand square feet larger discussing building footprint now or footprint or the boundaries of no the building footprint Footprints okay so we're discussing I think that that we did come up and we did Ro look at at this as a matter of fact the questions that the when the Cape Cod Commission was first brought on to draft the for B housing they asked 11 questions in a survey in the public and they were ped and this was one of them and the reason why we adjusted the size to what it is now it was with that input there was about a 100 um individuals that um commented associated with that and I think the neighborhood and we can dig up the results on that and but the buildout analysis shows that the buildings are too large U that's pretty much so what do we so so right right now it's it's 5,000 and for the large buildings excepted B which is 4,000 so I was thinking one simple change would be to make get 4,000 for A2 as well as 4B it was very hard when you looked at the Bild analysis but if you just look at those large buildings and kind of visualize them being 20% smaller it helps a lot that that's kind of where I was coming from again could I just ask a question so we have it the maximum building footprint in the bylaw zone A1 we have it now at 3,000 square ft Zone A2 5,000 that's what I was referring to and Zone B 4,000 square ft and you're saying the way BSC did the building analysis followed those yes it did it did and your suggest in that we change Zone A2 y to be also 4,000 square ft which would reduce the footprint by 20% yeah um I was always liking smaller building Footprints so I that was the consensus of the um the polling that was done back then so but they didn't have the benefit of the buildout analysis that's correct um that's a number change I think we can do that the next Gathering um I don't disagree with you Frank but I'm curious to see what um uh Union Studios design might look like if they're using the 5,000 I think they're going to be using the 5,000 because that's what the but you know because what we saw from the the buildout analysis were boxes we're not going to be seeing boxes from we home um no we won't be seeing that from Union Studio at all I can guarantee you so so I'm just you know but but the build analysis indicated what a developer could do and they were enormous so I think we should react to that but a a eight unit close close to the mic an 8 unit row house yeah is going to get pretty close it's not it's not bigger but they're connect connected so it's one building I mean it really depends on on the on the design we 4,000 square feet that's a box looks is what's scaring us right yes well I I disagree 4 thou or 5,000 square F feet which is what we're talking about stretched out in a line is very large visually what's 100 by it's 100 by 50 but it's 100 by 25 if it's two stories no no no we're talking about footprint just footprint footprint okay that's yeah all right villing footprint yeah yeah that is big let's go with 4,000 okay yeah I it's changing a five to a four yeah um I I have no problem with that I have no problem with it all right we're going to change the five to four so just to confirm it's 344 344 yes great it's good boundaries and just oh and in Green Space um the green space I think we do have criteria in here for it but it's I don't think there's a percentage defined and well we have 60% have maximum is 60% for lot coverage does that mean 40% could be landscaping or something else that parking well that's that no parking counts toward WS um lot coverage lot coverage yeah um I guess what I want to you know how do you do that how are you going to get that many houses in there if it's only 40% ah you'd be surprised you can do it um you know it instead of it it being you know I think of um cluster subdivisions where they have you know their subdivision in these little lines of green space in between which is not usable space it's it's you know it there there needs to be an area an area an area I don't know how best to describe it but they you know we don't want to just see little green here green here green here we want to see connectivity to a green space if that makes sense yeah okay and I'm not sure where that would fit but again we're the permit granting Authority and that's really in terms of our review of a subdivision plan that's exactly what we would be requiring Well site plan approval but we also need to give the the person designing um some criteria to show yeah it it would come underneath section 15 landscape standards and so um I I didn't have that on the agenda I have not reviewed that that might be something that we could take up and if you could look at that Charlene and see if you could suggest something I'll take a look if you do have something to send it to Katie that maybe we can share that with everybody then I will be happy to do that do we may I just do we have lot coverage maximums and that it's it's 6% 60% which is so could it go in that section somehow or better Landscaping no I think better Landscaping just to give an I just to give some requirements direction as to what would need to happen yeah yeah great okay I I'll do that okay okay um boundaries so on the boundary um we haven't made any changes to the boundary in years we've we've noted that the the the original way back when 10 plus years ago the West Chan Neighborhood Center we looked at the north side of also being included in this and it's sort of like um reciprocal to the Southside because we thought it was very strange that the Southside was going to be in the neighborhood center and the north side wasn't many of the Lots on the North side are not developed so those are prime examples of where the neighborhood center could go so unless there's a reason for it I would hold to what we had originally proposed the only thing I can think of is the the town-owned property and then the property with the um the habitat houses is that at the end of the culdesac all that's included you know those two don't really need to be part of this they don't need to be I I I think that would be the only thing I would think of removing yeah and those are in the most Northeast uh they're in the Northeast section right yeah and they're just below the they color so it's it's everything from the called the sack over yeah it's everything from that called the I mean those would be the only there's no reason for them to be in there only because it's Town property and already developed residential property it's residential already yeah so so that one I'm sorry I keep so the one which lot is Town property just the one lot with the habitat that one that one so just the one lot with a habitat and it's already developed but it doesn't really make sense to to exclude it it's sort of nice to have it contiguous um in my point of view I think are you looking we're looking at what happens if we it was redeveloped no it can't be redeveloped right so that's why it why have it in there if it can't be that was my only reason we can look and see how it would look from a zoning outline standpoint um with those with the conservation property as well as those if you can see where my um cursor is here these are the habitat properties right here yeah and and to the north of that is what that I believe is conservation that's conservation too I believe and the one just to the West that's conservation correct and this yes I believe are both that one's conservation too so you're not really building on that one it's Town owned but aren't those own Municipal then they may I'll double check but they they actually might might be zoned Municipal conservation I'll double check if they are they shouldn't be on this anyway then right this is just the boundary kind of yeah but we'll we'll check into that if you remember when they went through the buildout analysis they showed the pieces that were excluded that oh yeah yeah all of those sections were all excluded pretty much anyway yes um that that would make this a little bit cleaner since so if those yeah lots are Zone municipal will take them out but if there's no issue we could leave them in it's of six doesn't but I think you're taking it all all the way up to that conservation property including you would take all of that out it was just throwing it out there as a thought it's a good thought so all right I'll go over that with h with staff and we'll see where we go with it right otherwise you got I got a lot of homework for the next two weeks with with everyone and they're doing most of the work but I I'll just make yes otherwise I'm I'm certainly fine with the boundaries as they are and as they have been for some time they initially went through some changes but I think they're fine as they are with the exception of those we'll just find out about whether those are Zone municipal or not long as everyone else is okay yeah I'm okay with them as well I could go either way frankly okay yeah did you have something else Katie that's great I was going to share my screen with the current zoning map okay I'd like to ask if there's um any comments from the public and again we're looking only for comments on the west jantam neighborhood center by law at this point uh do you I see any hands up Katie Carolyn mcland oh yes Caroline go right ahead hello can you hear me yes yeah I'm sorry if this has already been discussed but I trouble getting to these meetings because of I work so you might have already gone over this but I did catch the latter part of your discussion and I decided a couple questions about when you talk about affordable and attainable what's the Ami range that you're you're saying for how how you define attainable so you're not putting in the the yes Katie I think Katie can read that to you right now just a minute sure it talks about the distribution of affordability shall be as follows first first unit shall be affordable to households earning 80 to 90% Ami second unit shall be affordable to households earning 90 to 100% Ami additional units may be affordable to households earning between 80 and 125% Ami all right so when you're talking about making restrictions on or uh requiring a developer to have uh like two units for the attainable affordable or attainable that basically is between 80 and 125 Ami that encompasses all those scenarios is that correct yes that's correct okay and so you're not and then the next thing is you're not putting any yearr round deed restriction on this other than waiting to see if the seasonal communities act offers some tool that would allow you to do this is that correct no no we we're saying that uh the uh the uh renter or the owner of the property would uh could put um a short-term rental up to two months on their properties but they'd have to occupy it for 10 months they have to occupy it for 10 months though in order to get that two month yeah that's two months per year per year per year yeah okay so single occupant would be able to rent their unit for two months two months as long as they're in it for 10 months so remaining 10 okay all right all right those were my questions um right great thank you so much and I appreciate the work you're doing I know it's a it's a difficult task so thank you all right uh any other hands raised Rick Levan oh Rick Le yes thank you uh and I also Echo Carolyn's comment your work is enormously valuable and I appreciate enormously myself my question is related to the the use table on page 15 and the draft bylaw and uh with respect to sing single family dwelling units it in the initial some of your initial drafts single family dwelling units were completely and they should be completely uh excluded from The Village Center zoning uh but we we've discussed in the past you and I the importance of having U Cottage clusters these are single family homes but they are indeed multif family developers and so I I just wanted I really have a question for you in the in the current draft of the uh bylaw again the uh permitted use provisions T I think we looked at this um Rick and we said that that's a detached multi uh unit and we could go that way with it yeah that's excellent all right I I I appreciate that very much I just want to know how you in intend to put that into the bylaw because right now just the the use table says and this is excellent one single family dwelling per lot is not is excluded but how many single family dwellings per lot can be included I'm just going to make a well you could have um a larger lot with two units on it and for all practical purposes it looks like two single family units um so it's just that you wouldn't have one on a lot so and these are mostly intended to be you know for um multiple um multiple buildings on a single lot because most many of the Lots in the west chadam Neighborhood Center are rather large and the intent was not to subdivide these into small 10,000 foot Lots now the you know other things in the future might alter that but I think for the first P step what we were looking for is we were looking for like U mixed use on a piece of property where you have a mix of retail and then the residential piece but there would be multiple structures on that and it could look like separate units depending on how the developer was approaching it well exactly I I I just question how that's going to be incorporated in the wording of the of the byar I'm going to quote you just briefly here tonight the uh Cape Cod commission's housing strategy report which was just recently adopted formally it's been in draft form for a number of years but and it's called the Zoning for housing best practices and one of the best practices is U utilizing Cottage Court zoning a Cottage Court is a group of small detached single family dwellings on a lot arranged around shared land green space with shared parking areas visually screened from the street the units may be rental or Condominiums and they have in their recommendation a Rec well a a recomend Ed zoning language for that kind of cottage clusters and I and I was hoping that you would put that into your into the West chadam Neighborhood Center uh zoning proposal could you do that okay we'll we'll take a look at what I I understand what you're saying there and we'll just take a look at if that language helps or clarifies it and we'll see how that can be incorporated well thank you very much I appreciate that and again I think you guys are doing a terrific job it's tough I understand it completely uh but you're you're right on track so keep going uh Katherine um if I could just comment on what Rick's brought up I I mean art and Community Development Department will take a look at that language but as I've understood as we've moved Along on this that what the small Standalone units that you're calling single family we're we're specifically not calling them single family those are a form of multif family units they're just detached multif family units and I don't know that it's necessary they're included when we say multif family dwellings they could be detached you could put five on an acre and they're detached and they could be organized in a cluster pattern with a courtyard in the middle or something like that but as I've understood as we've gone along that we we don't we actually don't want to call them single family homes or small single family homes they're multi it's a multif family development just detached units um but we should take a look at it and take a look at what K say I personally liked I'm sorry go ahead no I agree completely Catherine that they are multif family units and and the you know the Prof the professional language today the professional uh all of the professional writing today includes these small units as M multif family and and indeed when you when you receive the union Studios representations a couple of couple of weeks from now on the 27th I I'm sure they're going to include a number of uh small single family units as multi multi family buildings I personally found that Cottage um whatever Cottage it very helpful very descriptive it's been thought through by you know zoning people so I think we should try and employ it okay yeah great yeah and just excuse me just finally it's the missing middle housing that we've all been talk you've all been talking about tonight that's the housing we need to build that's what's needed here in chadam for the and for the families working here in chadam and working on the C that's not that we just are not building any longer it's the missing middle okay uh thank you Rick um I don't see any more hands raised no Mr chairman okay um unless there's any other comments um Mr chairman I move that we adjourn this really incredibly great meeting yes have a second Warren chain a second um Katherine helper yes I approve uh Warren chain Warren chain approve B War shter award sha approve Charlene Greenhall Charlene greenal approve uh Frank Shear Frank Shar approve and arts bro I approve and the time is uh 651